Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Ron Paul doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell at winning the GOP nomination and here is why:

1. He gets flustered easily. When asked a question that requires a quick response he begins to stutter.
2. He is older than the others and cannot hold the younger vote.
3. He is too soft spoken.
4. He is not "hip" to today's culture.
5. He would get run over like a freight train against obama.
This sucks I know but I thought I'd put this here for ya'll to ponder. I like, no love, his stand on gun rights and the constitution, however his ability to speak on demand lacks. I fear that in a one on one debate with a liar who will say anything to sway votes he would be embarrassed, and completely over run with a quick talker. We all know this is true. If he were say, 20 years younger or maybe even his son, he might have a chance. I personally believe that if I'm going to vote so my voice is heard I want someone who will be taken seriously at debates. The dem's nailed the coffin with McCain (who is a great patriot of this country) and I'd really hate to see the same with Ron Paul. Now that I've said that I will address Perry from Texas. I don't like what I see in his eyes when he speaks. I know he has seven children and that probably put those lines (wrinkles) in his face, but there is something there that behooves me. I don't sincerely feel his presence when he talks. I see a robot, who is scripted and has a plan. What the hell is it? Why is there only one man who lays out his plan at all these debates? The 9-9-9 tax plan sounds like a winner to me. I might pay more for groceries, or when I take the family out but damn my paycheck would make up for that. I get about 30% taken out now so the 9% would be a welcom sight. I'm just saying, its time to get serious about who we vote for a I'd hate to be the one voting for a losing proposition. This is of course just my opinion, but I have talked to several fellow workers who feel the same way. What do ya'll think? I'm curious. (i will now step down from my pullpit) as my wife calls it.

I don't think any legitimate Ron Paul supporter actually believes he ever stood a chance at election. But that is really beside the point.

your off on number 2...last go around thats pretty much the only supporters that he had

spadesofcolumbia wrote:your off on number 2...last go around thats pretty much the only supporters that he had

Agree but everything else he is right on.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

spadesofcolumbia wrote:your off on number 2...last go around thats pretty much the only supporters that he had

Agree but everything else he is right on.

Ditto, but I think Ron Paul's value is to shift the focus in the right direction. I don't think he will win, but only because he doesn't present himself well, not because of his ideas. I hope that people might start to think that adhering to the Constitution isn't such a crazy or obsolescent notion.

OakRidgeStars wrote:

davasmith wrote:Ron Paul doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell at winning the GOP nomination...

Very true. Now, who remembers what Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?.

So why do you keep voting for the same old Republicans who lie to you every election to get votes and then do nothing but be Democrat lites? Insanity, why yes, yes it is.

I refuse to participate in that insanity and gladly vote third party when necessary.

SHMIV wrote:I'm concerned that Ron Paul may end up running as an independent. If he does that, another 4 years of Obama would most assuredly follow. Once he loses the Republican nomination, he would do well by the country to not run at all.

I disagree. If he runs as an independent the Republicans were going to loose either way because they put up another McCain. All the people who would vote for him as a third party candidate would simply find another third party candidate to vote for or just stay home. Obama (D) or Obamalite (R) really makes no difference in the long run. Blaming him or others for the Republican's asinine choices is just silly. There would be no reason at all to run as a third party candidate if the primary candidate wasn't just more of the same BS.

I still think it's a little naive to believe that there is any difference between a republican and a democrat. They are both controlled by the same ruling elite (the banks). No matter who is in office the public gets fleeced one way or the other.

davasmith wrote:Ron Paul doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell at winning the GOP nomination

1. He gets flustered easily. When asked a question that requires a quick response he begins to stutter.

I saw the clip of the hypothetical coma patient; that was a tough one, I'd have stuttered too.

2. He is older than the others and cannot hold the younger vote.

From what I gather thats all he has.

3. He is too soft spoken.

A soft tongue is a sign of a strong mind. Dubya was living proof of the reverse of that.

4. He is not "hip" to today's culture.

See #2.

5. He would get run over like a freight train against obama.

I...wouldn't be so sure. The special election back in Queens to replace Weiner was won by a Republican; which should not have happened in that district, but it did. Upsets happen.

Will agree he won't win, but not for your reasons. I really didn't know much about him until a few weeks ago, but man, as far as all the other Republicans and Obama, this guy actually does represent real change, and thats why he is doomed. Hell, I only agree with him on a few issues, but I still like the man because I can respect a person who is at least sincere in whatever we disagree about.

I voted for Obama last time because I thought he would be a lion for the middle class....my God was I wrong.

I have a question. If not Ron Paul then who would you vote for?

I think the faults of Ron Paul have more to do with his rather "radical" history and his desire for wholesale change. For the party to support a candidate they need to be squeaky clean and a mild shift. Paul has a fantastic voting record and an extraordinary understanding and vision for how problems can be fixed, but it's too extreme for many Americans. The party isn't going to support him... and the party controls the media.

Elections are won by the media, and Paul doesn't have the support of either the conservative media or the liberal media. It's as if he doesn't exist beyond the web and his followers.

As a strong Paul supporter it can be very frustrating. But I just like knowing that at least SOMEONE is Washington has a vision beyond repackaging the past 30 years and calling it a solution...

My $0.02.

jim100 wrote:I have a question. If not Ron Paul then who would you vote for?

If that is a general question to all, I'll answer. First, not a Socialist or 'third-world' type like Obummer. Second, not a Democrat which is almost a synonym for socialist. Third not a RINO or Demo-lite - if I see he/she coming. Fourth, hopefully there will be a conservative who truly supports the constitution and Ron Paul may be closer to that than anyone else on the scene right now.

Voting is not always about picking a winner or a strong contender. Sometimes, it is about stating one's case by voting for the candidate nearest to one's principles.

As to Ron Paul - I could care less about presentation skils or looking good in front of a camera. I'm a lot more interested in a candidate's character and principles. Abe Lincoln was downright homely and gawky with a high, squeaky voice. He likely would be ignored or ridiculed by today's MSM - and much of the general public.

All said, Ron Paul would face a real uphill fight if he were to run. But if the choice were between him and Lil Barry the 'community-organizer-lawyer-politician', Paul would get my vote. At least Paul would recognize that there is a Constitution and there is a difference between reasonable government expenditures and the current attitude that the citizens' money grows on trees in the Treasury Dept. grounds in DeeCee, and they only have to pick the fruit.

Jon Huntsman is a potential, although I need to learn more about him. I think whoever the nominee is needs to appeal to a wide range of the population (and the media) in order to be electable. I don't think Ron Paul or Michell Bachmann fit that bill.

A moderate Republican in the White House is better than a conservative on the losing ticket!

Follow the money. Pretty likely that Rick Perry is going to get the nomination.

gunderwood wrote:

SHMIV wrote:I'm concerned that Ron Paul may end up running as an independent. If he does that, another 4 years of Obama would most assuredly follow. Once he loses the Republican nomination, he would do well by the country to not run at all.

I disagree. If he runs as an independent the Republicans were going to loose either way because they put up another McCain. All the people who would vote for him as a third party candidate would simply find another third party candidate to vote for or just stay home. Obama (D) or Obamalite (R) really makes no difference in the long run. Blaming him or others for the Republican's asinine choices is just silly. There would be no reason at all to run as a third party candidate if the primary candidate wasn't just more of the same BS.

Oh this!

OP does not know what behooves means

I will find it nearly impossible to vote for a rePube-ican who:

Banned the rifle most commonly used for the defense of our nation (AR-15). Instituted a fool's errand similar to Obamacare. Oromney

Does not want to install a border fence, as well as supports (TO THIS DAY) in state tuition for illegal aliens. Perry

3rd Party at this point may be my preferred choice to staying home in a drunken stupor. If the R's put up a non-solution to the problems our country faces, that is on them. I'll be damned if I will facilitate or encourage them!

jim100 wrote:I have a question. If not Ron Paul then who would you vote for?

Write in vote for my pet corn snake, Steve. He has a proven track record of results; chiefly strong pro constricting, pro suffocating, and pro eating of rodents.

An invaluable skill in DC which will benefit us all should he win.

You know? Just chiming in... I'm described as a "Conservative Libertarian", and NONE of the Republicans appeal to me...

BUT!

Obama appeals to me even less. And it's nothing personal mind you! He's very affulable, and charming... But... we disagree on guv'mint's role in every day lives...

SOOOO! Yet again... the GOP has me holding my nose, and pulling the lever for someone who does nothing to make me feel better.

They're two sides of the same coin, and I want a new coin.

Reverenddel is right on the money. We conservatives simply can't afford the luxury of wasting an opportunity to vote against 4 more years of Obama, which I fear will leave our country too socialist and too totalitarian to ever return. It's THAT bad, in my view. So it would behoove us to make like the republican equivalent of a yaller-dawg democrat and vote for whoever winds up opposing Obama as an electable alternative. It might leave a taste in my mouth that's close kin to having a skunk crap in it, but the alternative would be worse.